• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Romney vs. Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
A.Nonymous said:
Also, even if this was limited to the top of the company, where is the crime in it? It's still a good deal for the employee and completely legal.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was illegal, but the article explains the pricing of these tax deferred investments may have been unreasonably low, i.e. fraudulent, that could cause the IRS to go after the profits.

The is a private equity, or venture capital firm, not many low paid employees.

What the articles main point is that if one has control of asset is pricing, something not available to you and I, then taxes can be avoided.
 
again which has absolutely nothing to do with... "What benefits do the people at the top reap from the government that the people on the bottom don't?"

nobody in this scenario is reaping ANY benefit from the govt

also bain has about 400 employees..... I doubt theyre all cajillionaires....... but assuming they are...... they made an investment and received the rewards...... the exact same way a guy can goto the horse races and bet on One Eyed Willy to win in the 7th race........ would this guy somehow also be reaping some type of benefit from the government??? :confused:
 
OutofDate1980 said:
I didn't say it was illegal, but the article explains the pricing of these tax deferred investments may have been unreasonably low, i.e. fraudulent, that could cause the IRS to go after the profits.

The is a private equity, or venture capital firm, not many low paid employees.

What the articles main point is that if one has control of asset is pricing, something not available to you and I, then taxes can be avoided.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything in the article that indicated what was done was fraudulent. I'm not sure what your point is. The employees at that company had access to a retirement plan that is much more genorous than those most people have access to. Google employees have slides and ballpits that most people don't have access to at work. What's your point?
 
A.Nonymous said:
I didn't see anything in the article that indicated what was done was fraudulent. I'm not sure what your point is. The employees at that company had access to a retirement plan that is much more genorous than those most people have access to. Google employees have slides and ballpits that most people don't have access to at work. What's your point?
Click to expand...

It appears I have to spoon feed the article.

"Under tax laws, valuations are supposed to reflect fair-market value. The IRS often challenges valuations of various kinds. For instance, if shares put in an IRA are undervalued, the IRS can determine there have been excess contributions to the account."

Note: This article is from the WSJ, their interpretation is mild compared to other articles.

I'm having to close on this as I'm scheduled for some surgery later today and not certain when I'll be able to continue discussion.
 
It was a way to exploit the IRA funding rules, and it did take some extremely wealthy people to set it up, but at the end of the day it was just another tax cheat that in fact worked against anyone who didn't reach penalty free withdrawal age before the tax rates went up. Cheating on taxes is something anyone can do and is hardly a benefit provided by the government for anyone, let alone the wealthy.

There are some good examples of how the government favors the wealthy, I just don't see this as one of them.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I thought Romney specifically said he wasn't going to bring up the Wright thing.
Click to expand...


Just like Obama isn't going to bring up 'vulture capitalism' during his campaigning, but I'm sure his supporters will be sure to run a few clips of the other GOP primary candidates running those attack ads. The other GOP candidates gave the Obama campaign a lot of to work with during the height of the GOP primaries. I'd hate to be the staffer in charge of reviewing all the debate and political ad footage.
 
GOP Super PACs Plan $1 Billion Spending Blitz

"
rsn-R.jpg
epublican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives – including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November’s elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups’ internal operations."

This doesn't include what the "inside" groups are spending. I wonder if the Saudi's, Russians or Chinese can create their own SuperPacs to fund their preferred candidates to represent the American public. Don't see a reason why not, as there are no reporting contribution requirements. Free speech for dictators, how thoughtful of our Supreme Court to provide.
 
TxGoat said:
Just like Obama isn't going to bring up 'vulture capitalism' during his campaigning, but I'm sure his supporters will be sure to run a few clips of the other GOP primary candidates running those attack ads. The other GOP candidates gave the Obama campaign a lot of to work with during the height of the GOP primaries. I'd hate to be the staffer in charge of reviewing all the debate and political ad footage.
Click to expand...


This will sound odd, but I feel bad for the Republicans. It seems like all of their candidates have imploded at some point. Jesus, the guy they picked, Romney, had to amend his reporting of assets when ABC exposed his accounts in the Cayman Islands.
I ask you, the 99%, what exactly makes you think that a millionaire, who has so many assets he had to hide funds in the Cayman Islands, can properly represent your needs?
 
I don't expect any President to represent my needs. That's what Representatives are for ;)

But since you think that the President should represent you, what about Obama (also a millionaire, a 1%er) makes you think that he can represent you? :dontknow:
 
ylexot said:
But since you think that the President should represent you, what about Obama (also a millionaire, a 1%er) makes you think that he can represent you? :dontknow:
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. In fact, everyone who ran this year was a millionaire. Found this interesting link - 2012 Presidential Candidates Net Worth | Bankrate.com. This is what the candidates net worth is excluding their personal residence

Obama - $2.8 to 11.8 mil
Paul - $1.9 to $5.2 mil
Gingrich - $6.7 - 30 mil
Santorum - $500k - 2.6 mil
Romney - $190mil - 250 mil

So Santorum is the common man's candidate I guess with a net worth of possibly as low as half a million dollars. Since the candidates aren't required to disclose all of their finances it's hard to pin exact numbers hence the estimates.
 
ylexot said:
I don't expect any President to represent my needs. That's what Representatives are for ;)

But since you think that the President should represent you, what about Obama (also a millionaire, a 1%er) makes you think that he can represent you? :dontknow:
Click to expand...


Actually, he has experience working with the masses, representing the public on the smaller scales, and helping pass actual reforms at multiple levels.
 
as439726 said:
Actually, he has experience working with the masses, representing the public on the smaller scales, and helping pass actual reforms at multiple levels.
Click to expand...

Actually, so does Romney. You might want to read up on his background before you make assumptions.
 
ylexot said:
Actually, so does Romney. You might want to read up on his background before you make assumptions.
Click to expand...


Sadly I have read up on Romney. My comments aren't "I hate Republicans". I am starting the truth which is that to the best of my knowledge, he has functioned for and about the privileged. That said, I am in no way saying "President Obama walks on water". I am saying that if I am forced to choose on election day, there is no scenario that I see Romney looking out for my family and our needs.
I believe that we have come to a time that both sides ACTUALLY have to work together for the common good. The days of rock hard partisanism must end. The American people have had their fill. If not, I believe thoroughly that the 99% will stand up.
That's my opinion. You are of course entitled to yours. I hope in the end that whatever does happen, it is good for "we the people" not "we the few".
 
Honestly, I don't see either Obama or Romney looking out for me period. I'm a single guy who makes more than the national household average. I'm not anyone either is going to care about. I'm not dirt poor and they want to buy my vote. Nor am I filthy rich to where I can buy political favor. Neither of them cares about me.
 
I'm not really looking for either to specifically pander to my needs. What I am looking for is a candidate that has a broader sense of empathy for the average U.S. citizen. In Romney I see someone that grew up in a wealthy family, never understood the plight of the every-day man, and quite possibly is looking to ease restrictions on the 1% of Americans that he has more in common with than the Everyday man.

In Obama I see a candidate that at least understood what it was like growing up with a single mother who did the best she could to try to make ends meet and provide for him. Granted, I'm willing to bet that his climb up to where he is now makes it more difficult to remember the struggles of his single mother trying to raise him, but I'll assume that he still remembers how hard his mother had to work to provide for him.

What's best for America may not necessarily be best for me individually, but I think a candidate that tries to do the best for most of the citizens is probably the best choice. Even though the right wing will try to label doing the most good for the most people as socialism, and then try to convince everyone in the middle that the best policy is to loosen policy and taxation on the "job creators", thus ushering in a new era of "Trickle-down", I just can't see voting for Romney.
 
TxGoat said:
I'm not really looking for either to specifically pander to my needs. What I am looking for is a candidate that has a broader sense of empathy for the average U.S. citizen. In Romney I see someone that grew up in a wealthy family, never understood the plight of the every-day man, and quite possibly is looking to ease restrictions on the 1% of Americans that he has more in common with than the Everyday man.

In Obama I see a candidate that at least understood what it was like growing up with a single mother who did the best she could to try to make ends meet and provide for him. Granted, I'm willing to bet that his climb up to where he is now makes it more difficult to remember the struggles of his single mother trying to raise him, but I'll assume that he still remembers how hard his mother had to work to provide for him.

What's best for America may not necessarily be best for me individually, but I think a candidate that tries to do the best for most of the citizens is probably the best choice. Even though the right wing will try to label doing the most good for the most people as socialism, and then try to convince everyone in the middle that the best policy is to loosen policy and taxation on the "job creators", thus ushering in a new era of "Trickle-down", I just can't see voting for Romney.
Click to expand...


Please don't be afraid of the term "socialism" my friend. I'm not condoning a move to, but it has effective and fruitful ideas
 
as439726 said:
Please don't be afraid of the term "socialism" my friend. I'm not condoning a move to, but it has effective and fruitful ideas
Click to expand...


I'm definitely not afraid of the word (If you look at my post in the French President thread, I rant about how we Americans are programmed to think it's a bad word). I only mention it because we're so programmed to believe that things like "socialized medicine" are bad for us.

It's actually sad to think about it, the government wants to tax us to make sure that EVERY individual is medically covered for any health issues, but so many people have been led to believe that that's a BAD thing. I don't know, if everyone is being covered, a few benefits I see right away, companies don't have to worry about that as an expense when hiring new people, and ultimately, employees are healthy, I really don't see why it's such a bad thing? Sure, people argue that government is too inefficient to handle something like Universal Healthcare with the efficiency of a for profit company, but do I really want an entity that is FOR PROFIT running my health care?

I always hear the argument from the right that they shouldn't have to be forced to contribute to do something for the greater good, and typically the people I speak with have school aged children and are rather hypocritical when I try to agree with them. I tend to mention School Zones and property taxes that go towards school districts. I tell them that I shouldn't have to be forced to slow down through a school zone nor pay property taxes because I don't have any children. I tell them that since I chose not to have children then I shouldn't be forced to slow down for someone else's children nor to pay property taxes for the local school. At that point they try to give me the whole spiel about how giving taxes to the school is for the "greater good" since you wouldn't want these children growing up uneducated and not being able to compete globally. And then they mention about how school zones ensure the safety of all the children. At that point I agree with them and ask them to explain to me the difference in that line of thinking towards schools and universal healthcare, to which I guess Faux News hasn't been able to formulate a response.....
 
ylexot said:
Actually, so does Romney. You might want to read up on his background before you make assumptions.
Click to expand...

Romney made and continues to make his money in Private Equity, at a illegal tax rate, by practicing what is called the bust out as perfected by Milken and other mobsters.

"Private equity (PE) is not about creating jobs, it
 
Here's Tony Soprano explaining some of the benefits of Private Equity.

Bain Capital Explained By Tony Soprano (VIDEO)

"The difference between a "Sopranos"-style buyout and one executed by Bain Capital, Galeotti said, has to do with the mob's willingness to use illicit capital and unregulated violence to accomplish its goal. "Private equity firms, in the main, while there are exceptions, basically operate within the letter of the law, if not the spirit. What they do is legal. It can't be challenged in the courts even if it runs against, sort of, the notion of the social contract," Galeotti said. "Whereas organized crime, if they have to kill someone, or if they have to use dirty money to do it, they'll do it. So it's the methodology that is different. But if you actually think about, Well, what are they doing? How are they doing it? And what's the end result? There, it's strikingly similar.""
 
TxGoat said:
I'm definitely not afraid of the word (If you look at my post in the French President thread, I rant about how we Americans are programmed to think it's a bad word). I only mention it because we're so programmed to believe that things like "socialized medicine" are bad for us.

It's actually sad to think about it, the government wants to tax us to make sure that EVERY individual is medically covered for any health issues, but so many people have been led to believe that that's a BAD thing. I don't know, if everyone is being covered, a few benefits I see right away, companies don't have to worry about that as an expense when hiring new people, and ultimately, employees are healthy, I really don't see why it's such a bad thing? Sure, people argue that government is too inefficient to handle something like Universal Healthcare with the efficiency of a for profit company, but do I really want an entity that is FOR PROFIT running my health care?

I always hear the argument from the right that they shouldn't have to be forced to contribute to do something for the greater good, and typically the people I speak with have school aged children and are rather hypocritical when I try to agree with them. I tend to mention School Zones and property taxes that go towards school districts. I tell them that I shouldn't have to be forced to slow down through a school zone nor pay property taxes because I don't have any children. I tell them that since I chose not to have children then I shouldn't be forced to slow down for someone else's children nor to pay property taxes for the local school. At that point they try to give me the whole spiel about how giving taxes to the school is for the "greater good" since you wouldn't want these children growing up uneducated and not being able to compete globally. And then they mention about how school zones ensure the safety of all the children. At that point I agree with them and ask them to explain to me the difference in that line of thinking towards schools and universal healthcare, to which I guess Faux News hasn't been able to formulate a response.....
Click to expand...


I have one simple response my friend. You speak the 100% truth. I hereby nominate you as my next president
 
A.Nonymous said:
There's nothing illegal about the tax rate. He's exploiting a tax loophole. That's all.
Click to expand...


exploiting -present participle of ex·ploit (Verb)
Verb:
Use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way: "the company was exploiting a legal loophole".
Merriam-Webster The Free Dictionary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom